Can start.

Um, yes, let's give it a minute for all the participants to be on.

I think we can start now.

I'd like to welcome everyone and call tonight zoning board meeting to order.

I'm David Stein, chair of the zoning board, and it is 6 36 on June 8th, 2026.

The members of the board and the staff are holding this meeting by Zoom video conference.

The public is in attendance both on video conference and by teleconference.

I'd like to do a roll call of the board and the staff.

Roseanne McManus?

Here.

Keith Walker.

Here.

Okay.

There are three members, so we have a quorum.

Now for the staff, Ralph Glessing.

Yeah.

And Vanita Matter.

Yeah.

During tonight's meeting, the board's microphones will be on.

The applicants' mics will be on during the public hearing when their applications are being heard.

However, I would ask the applicants to please mute their mics when not speaking in order to reduce background noise.

The first part of tonight's meeting is the public hearing during which the public will have an opportunity to speak.

Each member of the public will be muted until it is your turn to speak.

Here is the procedure for the public to let us know that you would like to speak.

If you came in through Zoom, please use the raise your hand function and you will be unmuted when it is your turn.

If you called in on one of the Zoom telephone conference call phone numbers, please press star nine and this will raise your hand and then press star six to unmute when it is your turn.

When members of the public speak, please state your name and address for the record and whether you are in favor of or opposed to the application.

The board requests that members of the public limit your comments to three minutes so that everyone will have a chance to speak.

If you're having a problem raising your hand or getting on, please send an email to uh Vanita at V Moter, V M A T H U R at Stanford C T.gov, and she will get you on.

This meeting is being recorded and will be posted at the zoning board's website.

You can find the agenda for tonight's meeting and the meeting applications and other materials by going to our website www.stanfordct.gov slash zoning.

Excuse me.

We will now move on to the public hearing.

Um we have uh two applications that were continued from our last meeting on May 18th.

Uh, they both involve 1150 Summer Street.

Uh one is the application 225-43, which is the map change, and application two two five-four four, which is the general development plan.

Both of these applications will be continued until our next meeting scheduled for June 22nd, 2026 at 630 via Zoom.

Um we now move on to a new application.

Uh application 226-08, City of Stanford Zoning Board, zoning text change.

The purpose of this text amendment is to strengthen the zoning regulations with regard to sustainability.

It would require to one, achieving a certain grade on the sustainability scorecard for certain developments, two adding solar panels or green roofs to larger newly constructed roofs.

Excuse me.

Um three, establishing standards for tree protection for zoning board applications.

This would implement several strategies, strategies and supporting actions from the city's 2035 comprehensive plan.

Specifically strategy 11 significantly expand Stanford's green infrastructure, such as street trees and bioswales, and Strategy 14, improve energy efficiency in Stanford buildings.

Absolutely.

April 29th, 2026 to Mr.

David Stein, Chair City of Stanford Zoning Board regarding CB application 22608, uh Stanford Zoning Board Text Change.

Dear Mr.

Stein and members of the zoning board, during its meeting held on Tuesday, April 28th, 2026, Planning Board reviewed the above captioned application referred in accordance with the requirements of the Stanford Charter.

Purpose of this text change is to strengthen the zoning regulations with regard to sustainability.

It would require achieving a certain grade on the sustainability scorecard for certain developments, adding solar panels or green roofs to larger newly constructed roofs and establishing standards for tree protection for zoning board applications.

Ralph Blessing Land Use Bureau made a presentation and answered questions from the board.

After a brief discussion, Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of ZB application 226-08 with the recommendation the zoning board consider increasing the minimum size of replacement trees to two inches caliper diameter at breast height and increasing the maximum height of the solar canopies when considering locations that have high truck traffic and found this to be in general harmony with the 2035 comprehensive plan.

Sincerely transferred Stanford Planning Board, Jennifer Gadzenow, Chair.

Thank you.

Ralph understand you have a presentation on this.

Please indeed.

Yes.

Can you see the presentation?

Yes.

For the record, Ralph Blessing, land use bureaucrative for the city of Stanford.

So the text uh proposal we have uh for you tonight, um, are several actions to increase uh sustainability um in Stanford.

Um, we have three major goals.

One is to make the sustainability scorecard a requirement.

Uh, secondly, to add measures for tree protection and to uh require certain roofs, larger roofs, uh, to uh either be a green roof or a solar roof.

So um this uh text amendment has been um some time in the making, it's based on the mayor's executive order uh from Earth Day um four years ago, which uh required the land use bureau to explore updating and enhancing uh the sustainability scorecard, and uh also required the land use bureau to work with the planning board um to add sustainability as a priority to the um new comprehensive plan uh and to review um the zoning regulations to add more um uh sustainability features and uh as Roseanne mentioned in the letter from the planning board uh it also uh incorporates um two of the strategies, in particular two of the strategies of the city's comprehensive plan, which went into effect um in uh last October.

So you've probably all seen uh the headlines uh in the news uh from the last couple of weeks and months, and uh probably um feel the pain at the pump.

Uh so obviously energy prices are going up at the same time.

Uh, we do have um uh issues created by climate change, such as um flooding through storms, um big flags being blown from buildings and interrupting power lines, um uh and uh energy prices are not uh getting uh any lower.

Um, so in addition to also supporting the environment, we think that um uh those tax changes also help reduce uh some of the the costs through uh uh energy costs, but also uh help making Stanford more resilient with uh more extreme weather events um coming our way.

So the first thing the uh proposed text amendment uh is intended to do is to make uh the sustainability scorecard uh a requirement, or better um that you have to achieve a certain grade uh on the scorecard.

So the scorecard has been a requirement for a couple of years now, um, but it um the only requirement was to complete the scorecard and to post the placard that comes with the scorecard um at the building.

Um now we're proposing that buildings uh must need um a certain uh grade in the scorecard.

Um this is something that applies to larger uh developments, so it would apply to residential buildings with 10 or more units or commercial buildings with uh more than 10,000 square feet.

Um as part of this tax change, we also made uh a number of revisions to the scorecards.

Um I want to um uh mention one of our staff members, Kendall uh Richie, who has worked uh on updating the scorecard um and bringing it up to date.

Uh so uh she did a lot of work on that.

Um, but what the uh new scorecard also does is it creates new categories.

So before it was a one size fits all, and what we've seen with the experience that we had with the scorecard over the last couple of years is that it worked really well for uh mixed use and residential buildings in uh downtown uh and surrounding areas, but not so great for large-scale commercial uh developments or industrial buildings.

So, what we did was uh we created different categories.

So now we have a category for new construction, residential and mixed use.

Uh, we have a category for uh large-scale industrial and commercial buildings, uh both new construction, and then uh for both building categories, we also now have standards for uh rehabilitation.

Obviously, rehabilitating a building, uh there's only so much you can do, um, but still um we would like uh those rehabilit uh rehabilitated buildings to um score better and uh uh provide uh some benefits um for the environment.

So this is how uh the scorecard works.

Uh so on your left you see uh uh a table that has the different uh categories that are graded uh in the scorecard.

So it has building health, energy use, uh land use, mobility, uh, and a couple of other um categories.

In each of those categories, there's a maximum number uh of points a building can achieve.

Um all those points are then counted together, uh and depending on the number of points in your category uh you get a grade uh assigned, and that is what you see on uh the right side of your screen.

So um a building, a newly constructured multifamily mixed use or office building uh with more than 95 uh points uh would get an A plus uh on the scorecard.

Um and once again the scorecard needs to be posted on the building.

Um and uh actually the scorecard is a requirement before uh a building uh can get uh its CO.

Um, Ralph.

Yeah, we require the scorecard as well, don't we?

Before we will do the building.

Yeah, there's there's actually um uh the scorecard has to be submitted several times.

So uh the first time it has to be submitted uh when someone applies to uh the zoning board.

Um obviously in many instances by the time um a building comes to the zoning board, uh we don't have complete uh construction drawings, so uh there is still a lot of um uh flux in there.

So um uh the the building plans get developed and the sustainability features get developed.

So um the scorecard gets submitted uh several times along the way.

And one reason why we want people to get their draft in uh at an early stage is that people think about uh sustainability from the outset when a project begins, and it doesn't come as an afterthought, and it becomes more uh expensive to include sustainability uh features um at a later date.

So uh the next item uh the uh sustainability scorecard or the sustainability tax change uh tries to achieve um is uh tree protection.

Um so this regulation would apply to all uh projects requiring zoning board approval.

Um and uh what now is required and actually what the zoning board has been done as a matter of practice for quite some time is that um all trees with a diameter of four inches or more need to be shown on uh a uh site plan, um, and the trees uh that are being removed as part of that development need to be identified.

And uh if a tree needs to be removed, a tree with four inches of diameter or more, um it must be replaced.

Uh so if you cut down three trees with um uh 10 inches diameter each, so that's a total diameter of uh 30 inches being cut down.

Uh the the applicant, the property owner needs to plant uh new trees that have a total uh diameter of um 30 uh inches.

So um obviously uh a lot of smaller trees that replace those big trees.

Um if the trees cannot be replaced, um after all the building is taking away open space, um uh there's a fee and loop payment that has to be made.

Uh it goes into the city's tree fund, and that tree fund is then used uh to plant trees in city parks uh on city roads uh uh and so on.

And uh this uh new section also contains um requirements for protecting uh trees during construction.

So what you see on your right uh is that uh a tree uh in order to survive construction uh activity, uh construction cannot happen within uh the canopy trip line.

Uh and also uh uh the soil shouldn't be compacted in this area.

Uh so there's requirements in uh the zoning regulations to um uh better protect trees during construction.

Um as I mentioned before, a lot of the stuff has already been done by the zoning board.

This is basically codifying a lot of the policies uh that that have been in place um and um just uh sort of making it um uh official.

Uh the next item are uh solar uh and green roofs.

So um a green roof uh is a roof that has uh vegetation on top.

Um and the um benefits of a uh green roof are uh that they can be really effective in um uh uh detaining rainwater.

Uh they cool the building, uh, they reduce the energy consumption of a building, um, and uh they uh uh lower temperatures uh in the surrounding area.

So they uh work uh to combat the urban, what's called the urban heat island effect, uh like the hot surfaces that you get on a sunny summer day on a uh uh asphalt parking lot um uh uh or something like that.

So many benefits uh to uh to green roofs, um uh and especially in some parts of the city that we've seen through the comprehensive plan, are uh significantly hotter uh than other parts, those areas where we have few trees uh and so on.

So uh the requirement for solar and green roofs um uh is triggered when uh there is a new roof that has a size of 5,000 square feet or more.

Um, and the requirement is that at least 50% of the roof area has to be covered by either a green roof or a solar roof.

Um we didn't say a hundred percent because uh a roof has multiple functions, you might have uh air conditioning or other mechanical equipment on there.

Um sometimes uh there is public safety requirements that the roof is used as an evacuation area, uh so we didn't want to uh get into trouble with the fire marshal.

Um and uh another exception uh exception is also that if the roof is covered uh by a substantial uh residential amenity um then uh the green roof also doesn't need to be um required.

Chairman may ask question, please.

Sure, yeah.

Good evening, thank you.

Sorry it was late, I was stuck in traffic.

Um, so just so I have some clarity, Ralph.

If I could good evening, how are you tonight?

Um you're saying a requirement, 100% requirement of 5,000 square feet on a roof to be able to use, they would have to have the either the solar and or the green roof.

So you alluded to saying that depending on whether it's an emergency evacuation or utilities on top of the roof.

How do you figure that out?

I don't know.

How do you figure out that percentage of what the requirement is of 5000?

And if they're if they're pared down and saying they have I how does that all work?

You know, they just yeah, I mean we were actually quite conservative with the 50%.

So uh we looked at a couple of roofs, and uh usually the mechanical spaces uh occupy less than that, yeah.

So we didn't want to get into a situation uh where it becomes very difficult for people uh to meet that requirement.

Right.

So we decided to go with 50% because 50% is better than nothing, but uh we think for most roofs it won't create uh a problem.

The other thing is that there is um uh an out, so you could ask for a special permit uh that you don't have to meet uh that requirement in case there are uh circumstances that uh don't allow to put uh a solar roof or I should have waited until you're finished.

That was my my fault.

I should have waited.

Yes, no worries, no worries.

Um, and I might have forgotten to mention it, so it's good that that you asked.

Um so uh that's so that's the green roofs, um, and then solar roofs is obviously uh putting solar panels on top um of uh a roof to uh generate electricity.

Um we also include uh roofs that use the thermal energy, like you can also use uh it to uh uh heat water or something like that.

Uh those would also be eligible.

Um, and actually, here on this picture, this is the Home Depot on the west side.

You can actually see uh the mechanical equipment uh here, those boxes, and then the solar panel.

So they're already doing that.

Um this is probably pretty much like 50% of the roof area that is covered um by uh by solar panels.

So this building most likely would meet uh the requirement already.

And uh just as an as an example, so this roof has an area of roughly 120,000 square feet.

Um if 50% are covered by solar panels, that would be 60,000 feet.

Uh and that would produce enough electricity, obviously only when the sun is shining, uh, to power um uh 60 to 120 homes.

So uh across the way uh you have the uh Westwood Town Homes, which is actually a charter oak property.

So this roof um could probably at peak times when the sun is shining, power uh those uh town homes over here.

Um what you also see on this uh uh aerial is that unfortunately we have a lot of roofs that are not uh um particularly uh environmentally friendly.

So those dark roofs uh they increase the urban heat island effect, and obviously um uh no production of electricity or uh significant contribution to um stormwater management or anything like that.

So um there's I think a lot of potential in uh those uh solar um uh and uh green roofs um throughout the city.

Ralph, can I just can I just ask a quick question?

You just mentioned about um the amount of solar powering a number of homes.

And is it a requirement that the construction of the solar be fed into the grid or gotcha?

Okay, so conceptually, if a home depot were to put 50%, they can power their own property.

Absolutely.

Yeah, got it.

Okay, just want to be clear, okay.

Yeah, no, and I mean obviously in the future, maybe there are ways to.

I mean, obviously, this is all the difficult and and there's a lot of parties involved, like Eversource and so on.

Um, but um uh this was just uh sort of a um case study to show like how what does it really mean?

No, no, no.

I I totally understand.

And you know what?

The fact of the matter is if if Home Depot is powering their own, they're not pulling it off the grid.

So everyone benefits from it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, so uh last not least, um, we're proposing um that uh solar canopies uh that's that are those things that you see here.

Uh so basically a cover of solar panels over uh a parking lot, for example.

Um that those are uh considered permitted obstructions because that means that they could also be used in parking lots that are in front of buildings.

Um currently we consider um solar canopies uh accessory structures and accessory structures can only be in rear yards and side yards.

So by making solar canopies um permitted obstructions, um uh there's more flexibility for people to deploy uh those uh solar canopies.

Um what's actually quite interesting about solar canopies is also you see sort of the trade-offs between different sustainability goals, um, because obviously if you have a solar canopy uh you might have less uh trees on the parking lot.

Um so you have a little bit of a trade-off here between uh greening a parking lot and using it for um uh renewable energy uh uh production.

Um, but I think overall all those different measures together um will uh will have a good uh effect uh on the environment and uh this is basically it for this uh text change good good thank you um why don't we um go back to the board and just see if there's anyone else who has questions um roseanne you're on mute you're muted sorry i don't think i have any questions with the with the solar canopies um which is great that that's included but we can at the same time encourage maybe some shorter greenery to make up for the lack of trees and and really push both so what we said was that basically with the solar canopies and it was something during the process when we were talking to different people uh what we said was that you cannot put a solar canopy over something uh that is not uh paved um and uh you should avoid uh um obviously or it it doesn't uh exempt you from tree planting requirements and parking lots etc.

Yeah but I mean nobody would want to plant some trees around the side of it to block sunshine but you know we can encourage you know growth of you know 10 foot plants and shrubs and bushes yeah and also I mean you can use solar canopies on top of a parking garage you have nothing growing up there um uh but you could you could put a solar canopy on top um of of the the top parking deck and and create uh um uh electricity but also the cars wouldn't get as hot yeah uh whatever on top of the mall parking lot yeah yep no I don't have any other questions it's um to me it's it's pretty straightforward and something we've been leaning towards and pushing separately anyway okay um Jerry any other questions no thank you Mr.

Chairman uh you know I asked this the simple question it was directly at you thank you okay and Benita could you just note that um Jerry has joined the meeting thank you and uh Keith um I just have one quick question and I guess maybe it's part of the scorecard or maybe it isn't um is there any requirements or any suggestions about uh reducing the water footprint within a within a building in the scorecard there is a couple of uh uh measures for uh water management and both for uh the use of uh water for irrigation but also inside of buildings like using more uh efficient faucets and things like that um we also uh you also get extra points in the scorecard if you uh use um uh native and drought resistant plants uh so that you don't need irrigation uh hopefully uh to begin with so that's that's part of the scorecard great great thank you that's all I had Keith one of the things that we learned from the water company in the last couple of years because naturally a lot of people were worried that with all the building we didn't have enough water um but the water company basically told us that the new buildings are all so much more efficient than the old buildings that they all use less water um so it's great that we have it on the scorecard but I think the builders want to use all that water efficient um appliances and whatnot because in the end it makes it cheaper to run the building.

Sure, sure.

Okay.

Okay.

That was that was my only question.

Okay, thank you um I don't have any questions.

Um I would just say that this is a um, I think an excellent text change, something that I know we've talked about for a while, and um I think it'll be uh an important addition to our regulations and um they certainly beneficial for the environment.

So let's go to the public.

Um, by the way, we've received a number of uh emails and letters from the public.

Um, I have to admit I've never seen so many uh public comments in favor of something we're doing.

I know, wonderful.

Yeah, so um, if your member of the public and would like to speak on this, please raise your hand.

Um, and when you're called on, give us your um name and address.

First, we have Ms.

Hi, good evening.

This is Sue Halpern.

I live on Elmcroft Road in the South End.

And it's great to hear that people are approving this, or you know, positive this is great.

And as you mentioned, according to the comprehensive plan, in order to create and maintain a healthy city.

Uh, is you need to significantly expand the green infrastructure.

And vegetation coverage varies widely from 13% in the south end to 65% in North Stanford.

In those neighborhoods dominated by impervious surfaces, the urban heat island effect is a significant concern, as you mentioned, Ralph.

Summer temperatures can be up to 20 degrees higher than in other parts of the city.

Several acres have been approved for large and high-rise development in the south end and downtown.

So it is essential to approve this text change to add and protect trees and green spaces.

Global warming is a reality.

So thank you for taking steps to scale up urban greening practices.

Thank you.

Good.

Thank you, Sue.

Um, next we have Ms.

Paula Woodman.

Yes, thank you so much, Fanita.

Good evening.

My name is Paula Waldman, and I've lived in Stanford for more than 30 years.

I am here this evening in strong support.

Can you hear me?

Paula, just give us your address, please.

Oh, I'm sorry, thank you.

Um, I live at 110 Old North Stanford Road.

Thank you.

Uh, I'm here this evening in strong support of this proposed amendment.

My hats off to all of you.

Over the years, I have watched a tremendous amount of development occur in the long ridge and high ridge corridors, and we know growth is important, but we've also witnessed the steady loss of mature trees, the natural buffers, the wildlife habitat, and many of the other environmental benefits those trees can provide.

Trees, I think, are one of Stanford's greatest assets.

They absorb brainwater, they improve air quality, reduce noise, they provide privacy, they support wildlife and make our neighborhoods healthier and more beautiful places to live.

They serve as physical, environmental, acoustic, ecological, and psychological buffers.

They create a sense of beauty, peace, and separation from the increasing intensity of development around us.

I am particularly encouraged by these provisions requiring tree inventories, tree protection plans, protection of the critical root systems, and meaningful replacement standards when mature trees are removed.

These measures create accountability and ensure that the value of existing trees is properly considered during the developmental process.

Once mature trees are removed, the benefits they provide cannot be restored overnight.

In many cases, it takes decades to regain what has been lost, if even at all.

Having witnessed firsthand the cumulative loss of mature trees from ongoing development in the long ridge and high-ridge quarters, I really appreciate the city's effort to strengthen tree protection before more of these irreplaceable resources are lost.

For these reasons, I'm strongly in support of this amendment and respectfully encourage its adoption.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Mr.

Virgil de la Cruz.

Representative Delacruz, you're uh on.

Thank you, Chair Stein.

I'm here in my capacity as a private resident of Stanford that has lived at 94 Davenport Drive for about 34 years.

And I too, I am much in favor of the proposed amendment.

However, as Mr.

Belessing knows, we have discussed this in the past many times.

Uh I believe it should go farther.

And to back up that statement, I'll also like to quote uh recent press articles.

The advocate, uh, a couple of Sundays ago, uh May 31st, to be exact.

There is an article summarizing the latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The title is UN Think It Is Hot Now, the next five years will smash records.

The other recent article in the press, again from the advocate, just a few days ago, June 8th, is a virtual glimpse into our shores' future, and it is a virtual reality projection of what the UN reports say because of sea level rise.

What will happen to our beaches, they will essentially are destined to disappear under the rising sea, unless we really really address global warming, and to really really address global warming.

We are just adding to the program.

Perhaps not as vociferous as before, but we're adding to the program, nonetheless.

So we really really address uh global warming.

We just have to stop emitting global greenhouse gases and ban consumption of those uh those fuels, as uh Mayor Simmons stated in her uh executive order.

Buildings are one of the major contributors to our global warming program.

So with that, I want to commend uh Ralph for taking this step, but I encourage him to really go to what is needed, net zero.

City, New York City is now requirement beyond net zero, buildings that produce more energy than they consume.

That is the latest development in New York.

So with that, I thank you all for being here, and I hope that I can get a copy of that excellent presentation on the website.

Thank you very much, all for all you do, and thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have the phone number ending in 1954.

Hello.

Hello, you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, yes.

Yes, uh, my name is uh Mike Papa 49 uh Boweton Street East, Stanford, Connecticut.

And uh well, uh I would say that I'm very happy about the initiatives uh there's a few things done right, but uh, you know, being uh into this ecological land here for about 20 years.

Actually, I born into it because uh in Italy are born into a farm and I watched it very carefully what the ancestors did for us, which uh over here we needed people on the ground actually.

We need a team of stewardship actually to experiment uh and uh try different things how to manage the water, the carbon, the nitrogen.

And I'm very disappointed that we, the mayor for uh uh uh climate change committee, and we never attend one meeting over there.

And that's only three minutes.

I don't know what you want to say, but I can tell you one thing.

Human intervention in the nature, you could gauge Stanford very easily.

There's a XC9, the building over there with the trees that are still there after 50 years, and the the school that we have to knock down the school after 50 years, the West Taylor school.

Okay, that just to show you that uh we have a lot of money over here, and when we don't we don't do any maintenance, we don't do any stewardship, and then all of a sudden we have to replace it.

We are live in a throwaway society over here that we'd rather spend a lot of money and not really give an opportunity to the uh to the municipal workers uh you know, union people to experiment that become better at what they do.

And they supposed to be to the head of the meetings and talk to the to the people in Stanford how to ameliorate and make better the sufferings that we go through with uh with the weather, with the chemical and with the pesticides, with the people dying with cancer, the right left and right, okay.

So I'm neutral on this.

I'm not for, not against a lot of good things have been done, but you are not doing the right things.

We are doing the things which is not sustainable.

Okay, remember that we just threw big money after bed.

We are not really develop a team of stewards the way I been preaching since 2007.

Okay, thank you very much to make me speak.

But I'm not a you know, I'm neutral on this, all right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mike.

Next, we have Mr.

Michael Moore.

Good evening all.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening.

My name is Michael Moore.

I serve as the president of Stanford Downtown.

I'm speaking tonight regarding application 226-08, the proposed amendment to section nine of the zoning regulations concerning sustainability.

My organization recognizes the importance of incorporating sustainable practices into our built environment and the need to enhance green infrastructure within our public realm to ensure a healthy and welcome environment for all residents and visitors.

In fact, our organization partnered closely with the city to create Stanford Street Tree Manual.

I also want to acknowledge Mayor Simmons' leadership regarding sustainability.

Uh, isn't important to know I have been benefited from multiple conversations with Mr.

Blessing about the proposed amendment.

Now, I want to acknowledge he and his staff for their collective efforts.

I've also discussed this topic with Mr.

Robin Stein, who I know is passionate about this subject.

That said, may I ask for additional time to consider the impacts of the proposal as Stanford Downtown is not quite ready to offer an endorsement of the amendment.

Again, I'm not voicing opposition.

I just ask if the zoning board will consider keeping the hearing open beyond tonight, so my organization may deliberate a little further.

The issues of the changes to the sustainability scorecard and green roof requirements are of particular interest to this organization and the building community.

Again, I greatly appreciate your consideration and all the time Mr.

Blessing has spent with speaking with me about this topic.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Next, we have Miss Melanie Hollis.

Hello, my name is Melanie Hollis.

I live at 41 Fairmont Avenue in Glenbrook.

I'm speaking in support of application 22608 and the proposed sustainability-related zoning amendments.

I would like to thank the Land Use Bureau for advancing these changes and the planning board for its support.

These amendments reflect both the recommendations of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the concerns that many Stanford residents have expressed about environmental protection and sustainability.

I would like to specifically address Section 9G2 street tree planting.

Stanford is experiencing a significant loss of urban forest canopy, including many mature and majestic trees, requiring the replacement of existing trees over four inch DBH at a one-to-one ratio or alternatively contributing to the city's tree fund is an important step toward maintaining and restoring our urban forest.

Implementation of tree protection is critical.

This proposal is especially important because Stanford continues to lose trees while large portions of the city are affected by urban heat island conditions.

Trees are not simply landscaping, they are critical infrastructure that help reduce heat, absorb stormwater, improve air quality, and enhance quality of life for residents.

Development and trees are not mutually exclusive.

Planting new trees should not be viewed as a substitute for preserving mature and majestic trees whenever possible.

Large established trees provide far greater environmental benefits than newly planted trees, including greater carbon storage, stormwater absorption, shade, and wildlife habitat.

I agree with the planning board's recommendation that the replacement trees should be a minimum of two inch caliber instead of a one and a half inch caliper.

And I'm sorry if I'm asking this question.

I had a conflicting meeting, so I wasn't able to hear Mr.

Blessing's presentation and the board's questions, but I just would like clarification regarding section 9G2.

If the tree replacement requirements apply to commercial properties that do not have street trees, such as office parks, and will it also apply to the construction of the new school facilities?

Thank you for your time and consideration and hope you support the application.

Thank you.

Good.

Thank you, Melanie.

Next, we have Ms.

Eleanor Blumstrom.

Hi, everyone.

I'm Eleanor Blumstrom and I live at 26 Coolidge Avenue in Glenbrook.

I strongly encourage the zoning board to adopt the proposed tax changes.

I've been in Stanford since 2010, advocating for more sustainable and climate-friendly actions in the schools and across the city.

And as a side note, I'm also now working with the city as the environmental sustainability coordinator.

And the proposed changes are really major steps forward for green infrastructure in the city and sustainable buildings.

Strengthening and codifying legislation and regulations that support the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the Climate Action Plan are critical actions that we need to be taking.

The scorecard will be supporting property owners and developers to make real efforts to improve sustainability of their buildings and showing their grades is an important signal of their contributions because to address climate change and transition away from fossil fuels, we really need everyone to contribute.

I wanted to know also that the zoning change is addressing equity issues allowing flexibility for affordable housing and nonprofits.

The tree protection is addressing concerns that we've heard voiced by a wide diversity of Stanford residents while also addressing the pressing concern of increasing heat from climate change, exacerbated by too much pavement and many buildings and low tree coverage.

Of course, trees also support cleaner air.

And we know that our most marginalized residents in those communities will benefit from these street trees.

Additionally, green roofs, as has been said, address the urban heat island effect, provide stonewater management, and create a good aesthetic in the city.

I wanted to say also about solar canopies that while they're not green infrastructure in the same way the trees are, they do have cooling benefits.

And of course, solar roofs are extremely important for emissions reductions and moving us away from fossil fuels.

So I just wanted to reiterate that we do need to address the climate change from all possible angles, and these text changes are a clear signal of what both the residents and the city values.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have the phone number ending in 4446.

Hi, my name is Jeanette Billichnanski.

I live at 125 Idlewood Drive.

Thank you to the land use board um for this ordinance I'm in support of it.

Just some additional um suggestions or things that I I had noticed if there was a way to increase and preserve tree canopies along rivers to protect the water quality and regulate temperatures I don't know whether this is part of uh sustainability but if you could provide parameters for wildlife for selling large number of trees like the over 300 trees that were cut down in April last year on 15 acres along Long Ridge Road um there are specific recommendations uh for wildlife birds etc.

I don't know specifically what they are but they're not at the beginning of spring.

So as we all know federal rebates have been abolished um you know it might be easy enough to get a special permit um but any way to do this is the way we need to incentivize solar infrastructure and if we can do this through municipal tax credits or asking our state legislators to to somehow come up with monies um because the cost of solar is expensive um and you know we don't want to add to to the cost of developers um so if we can somehow build some sort of rebates uh with the state or with the city um also you know there's always this balance between solar and cutting down trees so I just think we have to be mindful of that um you know that there's a balance between the two um also one last question um if the special permit process will allow for a public hearing uh for the public to comment on on why this particular um company doesn't want to to do um you know what's required or if it will be an administrative review um again thank you again for all the hard work um uh I'm glad to be able to support this and hear that so many of our Stanford residents are also in favor thank you again good thank you um those are all the speakers that we have okay there's one more a couple more of course okay we have Mr.

Dave Adams good evening uh ladies and gentlemen of the zoning board thank you vanita uh thank you uh Mr.

Chair.

My name is Dave Adams and I live on Glenbrook Road in in Glenbrook and I just wanted to say that I am in support of this tax change.

I think it's um you know it's it's balanced uh I uh I'm I do have some questions about um you know why uh you know there's a um a maximum of a four inch on on repla on trees that you're using to replace uh larger trees that you took down um I know and uh but I you know I probably I'm not terribly moved by that answer uh if I'm correct in understanding that the the total diameter of trees lost very weak uh needs to be replaced in full uh if that is the case then you know so then you have like 20 four inch trees to replace uh your you know your 80 inch tree or whatever you know uh yeah 80 inches is massive tree it's probably doesn't exist but the the point is is that the math works out that you're getting you're getting back the the same amount of wood basically um if that if that's a case then I you know okay but I just don't see why you have some audio in the background that we can I'm sorry.

I'm I have the uh hold on let me throw this.

Hopefully can't hear it's on the other side of the room now.

Um it's the steering committee meeting.

Sorry.

Uh so I I'm just uh you know, that would be one question.

The other, the the other question that I would uh, you know, and this may be just, you know, um, yeah, it may be superfluous, but uh I did notice that uh in in three separate uh locations in this uh in this tax change, the the words applicant shall uh repeat and I'm I'm just uh I you know uh I you know I'm a little crazy about language.

Uh, you know, is it is it uh completely unnecessary to put the word the in front of applicant?

Um because it would read better if you if if the was in front of applicant um and there were three different places there you can you know find them, I'm sure.

Um we'll when we come to deliberations.

Okay, you you you guys can do that.

Um and then I had heard at the beginning of this meeting that um that uh that we were moving uh from one and a half inches to two inches for the minimum uh for a tree replacement uh or or street tree installation.

Um I think that's a good move.

I mean, I you know, going back to what I was saying before, I mean I have four inches would be would be, you know, or three inches would be prime, you know, uh in terms of a new tree being planted, and maybe we want to think about uh elevating the minimum even higher.

Um I understand it gets crazy, you know, uh thicker or the the larger the tree the more expensive it becomes and and there are a lot of things to consider there, but uh it's just something to think about.

Anyway, those are my comments and uh my questions.

And I hope you all have a wonderful evening and thank you for your hard work on this because it's this is a step in the right direction.

Thank you.

Thanks, Dave.

Next, we have Mr.

Salvatore Zarella.

Hello, board members.

Uh this is Salvatore.

I live on uh on the water side.

Uh can you hear me okay?

Yeah, give us a street, please.

It's uh Keith Street.

Okay.

On the water side.

Yeah, thank you very much.

I uh truly uh can understand why um everyone's so excited about uh this uh particular initiative, uh, because I think this as everyone may suspect and hope that the city of Stanford is uh or should and needs to be uh a beacon for the state of Connecticut, I think is uh at least the way I look at it, uh being a proud uh born and raised residence of Stanford.

I am in favor uh of the proposal.

Uh I do, however, have some factors I would like to um for the board and the adopters and the authors to um consider.

I have uh I would like to propose that some conditions be placed within the requirements that are invariably going to be set forth for the applicants who um and I do agree with uh our uh representative Dela Cruz that I don't think it goes far enough.

I do think that the uh pathway um forward uh is based on resilience through uh an envelope first uh perspective.

I think that green roofs are wonderful um because they look wonderful, but I don't think that they add to the resilience equation in a manner that I think most people think.

I think that from a building science uh scientific approach and the thought process necessary from calculating what the net effect of a green roof uh performs.

I think there are some diminishing returns when we don't look or factor in uh the other variables related to airtightness uh and the thermal layer.

I think that uh green roofs have some adverse impacts related to the weight consideration.

I believe that if there's applicants that uh uh measure up, so to speak, for lack of a better word, uh in their performance variables and provide envelopes that are uh exceedingly better, have higher thermal capacity and and and greater airtightness, that that will uh far do far uh create a far greater benefit than uh placing dirt on a roof as uh in my training and in my background as a high performance consultant.

I the the greatest um uh the greatest sentiment is that if dirt was an insulator, we would put it in our walls.

The the one thing that dirt is really good at is retaining moisture, adding weight, and so I think it increases the carbon footprint of the steel and the uh factors related to the structure uh I think that uh resource dollars should be better spent in the envelope first approach and I think that would be one of the conditions that I feel should be strongly considered when factoring the resilience equation I think that otherwise uh I think it's fabulous I love uh what the city of Stanford is doing but this is my personal uh I would welcome um being a part of the thought process and I offer my services and advice uh at gratis to the city of Stanford to help in any way possible.

Thank you so much for your efforts and um wonderful thank you good thank you Mr.

Zarella.

Those are all the speakers that we have okay um Ralph you want to respond to the uh comments from the speakers uh yes so first I uh want to thank everyone who came out tonight and uh provided support um uh for this project uh it's uh very nice to hear and I will make sure that the team uh knows about um uh all your your uh encouraging words um for this um with regard uh miss hollis I think uh uh asked about if this also applies for commercial buildings uh office buildings yes it does it applies to all development uh within the city of Stanford uh the tree replacement uh requirement and so does the street tree planting uh uh requirement um uh miss Billchansky um she uh talked about the tree canopy uh along rivers um that is certainly something that is in our minds um we are trying to work uh on something like a like a uh reparian buffer overlay or something like that uh to to better protect rivers but that's a little bit complicated and and we're still working uh on that uh there was also a question about a special uh the special permit requirement to uh uh if you can't provide a green or a solar roof um yes that will have uh a public hearing every special permit uh application has a public hearing um with regards to uh the tree replacement so yes uh every uh uh inch of diameter needs to be replaced um uh I think it was uh Ms.

Waldman who pointed out that yes a mature tree obviously uh uh has higher value uh than a bunch of little trees but um uh at least um we're uh we're moving in the right direction um and uh the uh uh the determination um should it be uh what what the minimum uh diameter of replacement trees should be um we talked actually to uh landscape um architect um and uh they told us that um trees over four inches uh they will have a relatively hard time uh um uh growing and being replanted so smaller trees uh in that sense are better uh because uh they have a higher uh rate of um succeeding uh in the new um uh environment um with regard to uh uh mr zarella's uh comments and also um mr de la cru's comments um uh i hope um that this is not the last thing uh initiative we do towards sustainability and resiliency uh so um uh i think this is this is the first step and we will continue um working towards more sustainability uh and resiliency and i think uh mr zorella uh and and uh representative de la cruz um uh uh brought up a couple of important items um actually staff uh last week uh went to a conference on uh passive house uh design and and uh obviously there uh there's also the approach to have a highly efficient building envelope uh uh so um we're we're still considering and and working on refining um what we uh currently are working on so once again um uh uh this this is not the last time you will hear from us about um sustainability and resiliency uh hopefully we can we can uh refine this and expand uh the scope um of this project um as we move forward and i think i hope i answered all the questions uh that were posed um ralph i have follow up on the um replacement tree um so the currently in the text it's one and a half inches uh yes we can of course change that to two inches um given what we heard from the experts can we make it larger than that i mean the experts said the two inches is good one and a half inches is a little bit weak yes um so what about what about three inches i'm not an arborist so but you play one on uh zoom in the time okay um we can we can talk about that in the uh in deliberations uh i just think we it will it'll you know when you take out a a 10 or 12 inch tree and replace it with two inch trees it just seems like um yeah i don't know just seems like it falls short a little bit but we'll discuss that um board any further questions for uh for ropes no no mr chairman thank you no um mike more from d ssd had um requested that we keep this one open um i'm happy to do that is anyone uh feel differently no i think we probably should anyway okay okay keith you good if that's what people want sure okay um is there anything else then before we uh continue this application okay Ralph um thank you to you and your team for all of your hard work on this this is uh excellent and clearly was a a major undertaking so um please pass on our thanks to them yeah really thank you Ralph really yeah no and I I want to stress that um uh there were a lot of uh effort was made by by everyone in the land use bureau so this is really a team effort.

Well Ralph you could see that so thank you very much really well.

Thank you.

Okay.

Then um we're gonna continue application two two two six-08 um to the next meeting of the zoning board, which will be on June 22nd um at 6 30 p.m.

on Zoom.

Now we go into uh our regular meeting um the first thing we have is approval of the minutes.

Right, Benita?

Yes.

Okay.

Are there any um comments or changes to the minutes from our last meeting?

No, Mr.

Chairman.

No nothing from me.

Okay.

Can we get a motion then to uh approve the uh minutes?

Mr.

Chairman, I make the motion to approve the minutes as such.

Second.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

The minutes are approved for zero.

Um now we go into the pending applications.

The first one we have is CSPR 1231.

Diego Rodriguez on behalf of Joel Benegas Lopez, 52 Congress Street.

Legalize finished basement and first floor edition and add a new second floor.

The property is within the CAM boundary.

Umita, please tell us about this one.

Sure.

Um all the improvements in this project are internal.

So it's um, you know, um taking care of the basement improvements that were made already, and there's a first floor edition and second floor addition.

Um we got um letters from EPB um dated uh April 14th, engineering uh bureau of uh letter dated April 9th, and deep letter dated April 17th, harbor management letter dated May 29th, given that there was there's no uh site work that's proposed.

Uh the comments were really related to you know the construction staging and and uh management, so um that's all covered by the comment letters.

Okay, and I gather much of the construction has been completed already.

It is so really the second story is what's uh going through the permit process, the rest of them is uh formalization.

Okay.

Is there any discussion on this application?

No, no, can we get a motion to approve CSPR 1231 with the EPB engineering deep and harbor management commission comments?

So moved, second okay.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye, aye, uh it's approved for zero.

Next prelude thirty two.

Um I'm not even gonna try to pronounce the first name because I know I'll mess it up.

Um but it's 24 Ripowam Road, and my apologies to the applicants.

Um applicants proposing to renovate first floor and add a second floor edition on top of existing footprint property is within the cam boundary.

Umita?

Um, yes, so this is this uh there's a requirement for the coastal site plan review because the increase in floor area is more than 25% of the existing.

Um the all the changes improvements are within the building.

Um there's no exterior impervious uh surface that's being proposed.

Um also it's outside the flood uh flood prone area.

So we have letters from EPB engineering deep and hard management.

The EPB letter is dated April 27, engineering letters dated May 22nd, the deep letters dated May 15th, and the Harbor Management Commission letters dated May 29th.

Okay, thank you.

Uh any discussion on this?

Can we get a motion to approve uh CSPR 1232 with the EPD engineering deep and harbor management commission um comment letters?

I'll make that motion, Mr.

Chairman, with those recommendations.

Thank you.

Second, there are a second.

Okay, further discussion.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Uh and opposed?

Abstentions.

Okay.

This application 1232 is approved.

Next, CSPR 1234, Pamela Murphy, Garrett Redness and Weed, 145 Ocean Drive West.

Applicant is proposing to construct a gazebo walkways walls with other site improvements.

The property is within the CAM boundary.

Yes.

So this property is on the water.

There was a previous course of site plan approval that led to some improvements and later on the owner acquired an adjacent property, and now these improvements are proposed on that portion.

All of the improvements are proposed in the cat zone X.

The flood prone, it's not in the AE or the VE zone, but the zone X, which is the least uh restrictive, or you know, also the legal uh lease flood prone of the three.

Um we have positive recommendation from EPB engineering deep and harbor management commission.

EPB report from Jeff and Chapman is stated April 23rd.

The engineering report is stated May 27th.

Deep report is dated May 8th, and the Harbor Management Commission report is dated June 1st.

Any discussion or questions on this application?

I just had a quick question because I was looking at this and maybe I couldn't find it because I was looking on my computer.

It talked about constructing retaining walls.

Are they actually constructing retaining walls and I just couldn't find them?

Let me look at the site plan.

Give me one.

I mean, okay.

They do talk about walls.

I mean, there's an existence seawall on the property, but um because they're proposing as a gazebo, it's it's possible that they're um adding the retaining wall.

But the rate retaining walls weren't on the ocean side, right?

I don't believe so.

Yeah, okay, that's fine.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay, any other discussion on this?

No, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, you gave us the uh comment letters, right?

The list of them.

Yes.

Okay.

Can we get a motion to approve uh application CSPR 1234 with the EPB engineering deep and harbor management commission uh comment letters?

Motion to approve.

Second.

Okay, further discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

It's approved 4-0.

Um next, we have application 226-07, 29 Melrose Place, LLC, 27, 29, and 31, Melrose Place, and 445 Fairfield Avenue.

Map change.

Um, we um we received uh from staff uh two options for the map change.

Um, one changing all the parcels to ML and the other changing three of the parcels to ML and one to MG.

Uh before we uh get into a discussion on this.

Um is there anyone who's opposed to this application?

I am okay.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Um Ralph, could you please uh show us the two map uh options?

Uh yes, give me one second.

Now is as um you all remember they came in, the applicant came in wanting to change the all of the parcels I think there are um four of them to mg um the board had some concerns about that and um requested that they be ML applicant has asked that one of the parcels um be changed to mg and the other three um become ml right yeah and this um I mean the applicant didn't specify uh uh anything or or any particular uh preference um but I just wanted to highlight uh why uh um we submitted the alternative with the mg and the ml so um the the yellow um area is 445 Fairfield Avenue and that uh yellow piece here is actually part of that larger parcel and uh the zoning boundary which is this purple line here goes uh right through there so technically speaking this is a split lot so it's it's one tax lot that has two zoning designation this here is mg uh and this currently is R6 um and those here are the three um uh other lots and um as attorney hennesy explained this middle one here uh is also owned uh by uh the applicant so um since uh the the board had concerns about uh the mg designation for the whole area um we uh basically uh prepared two alternatives one would be to take this part of the larger parcel and uh put that in the same district the mg district as the larger parcel um that would um avoid the split lot situation and uh rezone uh those three parcels here uh to ml um or uh have um all those four um three parcels and this piece of four four five fairfield avenue uh rezoned that uh to uh ml i mean it's it's really um the split lot situation is is a technicality um it becomes a little bit more difficult to uh for for development uh purposes if you have that situation but once again it's it's uh technical um but uh what i wanted to highlight is that the uh ml district uh has uh uh significantly fewer um noxious uses uh or intense uses than uh the mg district um and all the uh uh uses have to be inside a building so that uh the neighborhood is less impacted um by those uses um we're also working on uh a tax change actually for the ml district that would strengthen uh more clearly separate what's allowed and what is not allowed in the mg versus the ml uh but also add some more design uh guidelines and requirements uh to the uh ml district and uh yeah that's that's basically it so um i guess the uh you have four options option number one is to approve the application as submitted by the applicant which is um uh making all those uh three lots and the the piece of 445 fairfield and MG District um making them all ml uh leaving the one portion of 445 fairfield in the uh making the part of the mg and the rest ml or denying the application and leaving it in the uh r6 district.

Um I also wanted to mention for the record that uh we think that the zoning board uh that's within the scope of this application that the zoning board can uh um rezone this to ML instead of the MG because it's lesser intensity.

So uh you you're reducing the scope.

Uh and therefore um I think it would be appropriate uh that the zoning board can make that change and doesn't have to deny uh the application and have to restart the process um again.

Okay, thank you.

Um, as we discuss, um can we oh sorry what?

Yeah, just keep it up for a minute, please.

Yeah, sure.

Uh right across the street there is uh all residential, and I think our concern about the MG um was those noxious uses that are not permitted in the ML.

Um so um, well, I think um rezoning it uh to ML is a good idea.

I would not rezone that fourth lot to MG because of the noxious uses that that are permitted.

Um they can do chemical manufacturing, um demolition material recycling, junkyard, um some other things, and as long as they're residents across the street, I don't think that's fair to them to make any of those parcels uh mg.

So I would I would support making them all ML.

I Roseanne, where are you on this?

Well, I had originally thought that that small parcel should be MG like the rest since it's all the same parcel.

Um and I think it's a pretty small lot.

Um how big is that first parcel, Benny?

Did you know next to 31?

Is it is it uh 33 Melrose place?

Uh it's actually for also 445.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, I would sort of eyeball it 5,000, 6,000 square feet.

Yeah, I mean, all of them are under 5,000.

I don't think there's a whole lot of noxious anything that can happen on 5,000 square feet.

I'd prefer to see it the same, but I would go either way.

Either either all four ML or um that converting to MG so that the lot is all one.

You know what one of the things could happen is 445, that big lot um right behind the the small piece.

The big lot could have that noxious use because it is MG, and it could extend it into the small lot, so it doesn't have to only be on the small lot, it could be in the back as well in the much larger area.

I'm I'm happy to support ML across all across all board all four.

I agree.

Was that Jerry?

Yes.

Okay.

Um Keith.

Yes.

You had your concerns about this.

Uh I did.

Um I mean, conceptually, I I am not in favor of vacant buildings, and I don't think they they benefit anyone.

Um, but it but at the same time, I feel that the greater benefit would be for the applicant, and I had asked this question whether there was a plan in place for it, if there was a plan, and there was a presentation of what was gonna be done within the community because there was a lot of objection within the community.

I'm not sure how we benefit from this this change, and just giving someone a change for the sake of giving them a change to make either their life easier or better, or make a broker's job easier.

Um I feel like if they have the ability to come to us and say this is our plan, we make the decision based upon the need not this sort of blanket okay I'm going to make a change that's going to affect um not only the area but the residents around it.

And I I just don't see the benefit um in approving this change.

Okay.

You would wait you're saying you would wait until someone has a use that requires it.

Yeah a use or a plan um I didn't really understand the applicant also bringing in other parcels that weren't theirs.

Did I get that correctly?

That was part of it right Ralph yes so the applicant obviously owns that yellow piece here but my understanding is that they also own uh this piece here which is occupied by that um I think uh it was a roofing company if I if I recall correctly uh that the applicant um I mean the um what I think what what we as the city want to avoid is sort of uh a rezoning with with missing teeth um so uh just doing uh like this uh property here and that property here um uh so uh I think it is our preference to uh have uh a zoning area rezoning area that uh uh that is compact uh uh and and doesn't have any sort of is not gerrymandered um uh by by any ways um and so was was that your suggestion or was that the applicant's suggestion um I think we have uh when we talked to them we brought that issue up and the applicant then reached out to uh the neighbors uh which of course benefit from from uh or would benefit from that rezoning because they currently also operate uh uh commercial or industrial businesses in a district uh they're legally conforming but they can't make any changes to their businesses so if if those guys want to uh like here I think this is the landscaping business if he wants to um enlarge his garage to put more um equipment inside he would need to get a variance because he would increase a non conformity uh on that uh parcel right um so uh and uh and and that was why uh we also encouraged the applicant to like look if you if you want to move towards conformance then look at the the context uh that's that's happening here just to add to that sorry is that you know the the garden zoning is what it is but it's not serving or helping the neighborhood the you know the idea is to kind of put it in a zoning there it they have some incentive to improve the property I agree you do I remember that it was zoned residential in the hope that it would someday become residential and uh that is not has not worked out yeah yeah it's it's it it's it's never I mean I understand that side of the the argument and once again I don't think anyone's benefiting from where it is today.

I think it the use has to be changed.

I just I'm not really for just of a of a blanket approval.

Okay.

So that that's my okay.

I I think um if I if I may add my two cents to this, um so years ago in 2006, uh and I see exactly where keep what Keith is saying, and then we were as a business, we are on the other side where our old business was on Atlantic Street, and we found a property that adjoined Knights of Columbus that in the area really needed to be kind of depressed.

The area really had to bring pretty brought up, and I get the logic, but we had a really difficult time.

We had to go through a variance, we had to go through a zone change as a as a type of business we are as a funeral, which was exceedingly difficult.

And this board said actually to us that we really should have we're we're accommodating you and we're taking it out of the zone area.

Well, we went through the process, it took us two years, and oddly enough, as a business as a commercial business, um, because of the type of business we were, and we brought a softer appeal to the neighborhood because of the type of business, other businesses were attracted and and invariably became it became better to the neighborhood.

And so I reflect upon this, especially in this application that if we're able to attract if we do an ML zone or we attract businesses, it may actually benefit that side of the street.

And it was just through a life experience in that.

But I but I totally see what you're saying, Keith, about that of changing that a blanket statement.

But you know, I have to be honest with you, if if it wasn't for us, it really would have kind of continued to be a um not blighted, but an area that really needed to be um a breath of fresh air that is kind of drawn into that area.

So sure, sure.

No, I totally get it, and that's why I'm saying like if it was you and you were applying and there was a plan, I'd be I'd be all for it.

I am not for the the area needs to be redeveloped, and I can I agree with the thought process that yeah, no, I do, and it but it's as an as a um applicant, it took us two years to get to that point, you know, and then we had to go move forward after that change.

So um, you know, so okay.

Uh can we is there any other discussion?

Not can we get a motion to um uh approve a map change for these four parcels to um BML?

I'll make that motion, Mr.

Chairman.

Happily is Roseanne, you're muted.

I think you seconded, but I wasn't sure.

I seconded it.

The dog keeps barking, so I keep muting myself.

Oh okay.

Um, is there any further discussion?

Um okay, all in favor of uh rezoning those four parcels to ml, say aye.

I aye, aye, opposed aye.

Okay, the uh motion passes uh three one.

Um the next two applications we have relate to 1150 summer street, which have been continued to our meeting on June 22nd.

Uh then we have our text change that's been continued to uh the meeting on June 22nd.

Um the last item we have is administrative modification for the Italian Center of Stanford, 1620 New Field Avenue.

Applicant is requesting a modification of an existing special permit to allow a raised paddle tennis court, two new Cadell courts, 10 pickleball court, one pergola, two shade structures and lights.

Um I think uh everyone has uh read the uh materials.

Uh is there anyone who's opposed to this?

No, no, okay.

Um we have a um a letter uh for approval on this.

Um it's you know the equivalent of our uh conditions.

Umita, you want to put it up, please.

Hi.

Can you see the better?

Is that as large as it goes?

A little bit more.

It can be a little larger.

Better, much better.

Okay.

Um it basically uh lists all of the um and these bullet points lists all of the modifications they would like to make, um, and then list the uh plans and the other documents we received.

Um wait a sec.

You see drainage summary report.

Can we delete the and at the end of it after 2020?

Thank you.

Um and then that we have the conditions, and the only conditions we have are um the comment letters we received.

The first from uh uh Susan Kiskin, uh, and that um the second is from uh uh environmental EPB, and the third is from uh the fire marshal.

Can you in the first one can you just put down her department name?

Yes, please.

So we have engineering, EPV, um, and um fire marshal, I that's it for the conditions.

Is there any discussion on this application?

I just had one question.

Um I looked at the maps and it was just a little hard to tell.

What's the closest?

Um, uh neighbor to where the uh courts are, the paddle courts and the pedal courts.

That's an excellent question, Roseanne.

I was gonna ask the same thing.

I couldn't really tell from the map.

Mike, do you want to address that?

I'd be happy to, and if I can share my screen, Vanita.

Sure.

Please uh introduce yourself.

My name is Michael Cacase.

I'm attorney with uh Cake Stush and Sanagata, and we represent the applicant, the Italian Center of Stanford.

I okay.

And you don't work from home on zoning board meeting nights, not always.

All right, is my map showing?

Yep, yes, yes.

Okay, so this is Newfield Avenue on the right side of your screen, and all along the top is bordered by property owned by the state of Connecticut because it's part of uh the Merritt Parkway at the very westerly border.

We border up against the high ridge park, which is a commercial use there, uh, and a cell phone tower uh in this general area.

So we have actually only one new court in the front portion of the property, and it's right here, and it's tucked in between three existing courts at that site.

So it's certainly no closer to any residential owner on the opposite side of Newfield Avenue, and again, the entire northerly border uh is uh the state of Connecticut Merrill Parkway.

I'd also note just for the record that most of the westerly border is part of King School, and the other new courts, the Padell courts are here, and they are closer to the Merritt Parkway portion of the border, and certainly a good distance away from any residential user.

There's a residential user here, and I would note for the record that the tennis courts that are shown closest to that residential user have been there for 40 or 50 years and they are lit, and we've never had a complaint.

So we are talking about some new courts back here, but they are further away than the existing tennis courts, so none of the new proposed courts, whether they're paddle courts, tennis courts, uh, or Padell courts, are really near or nearer to any residential users, it answers my question.

Thank you.

I would also just now that I have the floor for a second, uh-huh, having reviewed uh the proposed uh conditions, uh, would just point out that as to condition one with the comment from uh Susan Siskin Kiskin uh dealing with lighting and having zero candles at the border, that may not be true at the far westerly portion uh where we abut commercial property, and there is room in the lighting ordinance for some of the light to spill over.

In fact, that's a it's a swampy area that separates our property line from where the high ridge park begins.

So I would prefer to see the conditions say that we will comply with the lighting ordinance, uh I would um well it we have the comment from them.

I would suggest that uh you go back to her, if that's possible, and um work that out with the department with uh their staff.

That's fine, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, as long as we can get approved tonight and they can start putting in their courts for this summer season, we'd appreciate it.

Okay.

Okay, good.

Um board, any further discussion on this, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chairman, yes, sir.

The only comment it's not a uh question, but more of a comment, and I think um attorney cake, good evening.

How are you, sir?

I'm well.

If I just may add to a comment of yours, um the most direct neighbor uh I think that would impact that would be King School, and just an observation that uh the nights of uh the sorry, the Italian Center has been fantastic neighbors and shared resources with that school utilizing the tennis courts, paddle courts.

Um, so they have absolutely been a phenomenal neighbor in utilizing the uh allowing the students there to use their facilities, you know.

Um, and so I think it's a it's a great move with the Italian center.

Thank you, Mr.

Bozar.

Um good.

Any other uh board discussion?

No.

Okay, can we get a motion to approve uh um this administrative modification um to approve the improvements that uh the Italian center would like to make?

I make that motion, Mr.

Chairman.

Good, second.

And that okay, subject to the conditions uh again the letter that Benita prepared.

Yes, yes, sir.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye, opposed, abstentions, it's approved for zero.

Thank you.

Good.

Have a nice evening.

Good night.

Mike, good night.

Good night.

Um, and that brings us to the end of our agenda.

It's still light out.

I know.

This wonderful.

My god, I'm gonna have to talk to my husband for two hours.

Oh, you know what?

Just stay on the computer.

Tell them the meeting is still uh go.

Okay.

Vanita, we have a meeting in two weeks.

So what's on our agenda?

Actually, no new public hearing.

Only the continuation from tonight.

Okay.

Okay.

Um we are um not as busy as we have been.

So uh it's gonna be a quiet summer.

Yeah, yeah.

It is.

Don't don't jinx it.

Okay, I know I have a question.

And Ralph, it's because of the um, you know, conversation I had with the um retired men's association last week.

I was this featured speaker at last week's meeting of the retired retired men's association.

I heard that you were now they have 70 to 80 men who come to these meetings weekly, not monthly, weekly.

They're phenomenal, but anyway, is there ever gonna be any movement on the 14 acres?

As I discussed it and it brought it up that I haven't asked in a while.

I mean, before there can be anything done on the 14 acres, there's a lot of conditions that need to be met.

Which they won't do if they don't have somebody that's interested.

I mean, will residential ever be allowed to be built on there?

Well, that depends on you, I guess.

If there's an application, I mean there's never gonna be nobody's gonna want an office building there now, yeah.

Okay, I just wondered currently there is no residential permitted.

So the only thing uh is I think that what did we when we did the bathhouse?

I think or left.

I think a hundred thousand, roughly a hundred thousand of commercial, of commercial, not residential.

So what was we took a hundred thousand for the bathhouse or a hundred thousand?

We took thirty-four thousand, and there's a hundred.

It was one hundred and thirty-six thousand, so now there's like a hundred thousand left, and they can exchange it for residential or no, no, okay, but it have to be a whole new application, yeah.

For for everything, I mean, even for the hundred thousand, first of all, they need to meet the conditions, which is like completing the marina, board storage on McGee Avenue, paying for the bus beach, boat ramp, uh, then they would have to come back for a side plan approval.

Uh, and then they could build the 100,000, but if they want to build anything else, um they would have to change the zoning.

Yeah, in which of a way, shape, or form they want to do that, and obviously that would need to be approved by the zoning board.

And the property could support, I guess, far more than 100,000 square feet.

Uh I mean.

If you it's 14 acres, so that is a significant size.

So, a lot of room.

Okay, well, Roseanne, I think you need to go back to their meeting and explain this.

Yeah.

Did you get a tile from them?

What?

Did you get a tile from them?

Yes, I did.

Oh, yeah, those are nice.

And of course, parking and traffic were the main questions when i was finished and what can we do about i-95 i said sorry that's way beyond our remit we'll rezone it or um something yeah yeah okay um anything else chairman just want you know i was i logged in early and just couldn't uh talk with the mic was off uh the beginning of the meeting just so you're aware uh okay thank you okay good all right can we get a motion to adjourn so moved second okay thank you we are adjourned